OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM) for benign and malignant lesions in breasts. METHODS: Document retrieval was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, etc., from 1950 to June 2013. Metadisc1.4 software was used to analyse the pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and positive and negative likelihood ratio. The heterogeneity was assessed using forest plots and the inconsistency index (I(2)). Before statistical comparison, the area under (AUC) the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (SROC) of two different diagnostic methods was calculated respectively. RESULTS: A total of seven studies involving 2,014 patients and 2,666 breast lesions were included. Compared with the gold standard (histological results), the pooled sensitivity and specificity of DBT were 90.0% and 79.0%, and for DM they were 89.0% and 72.0%, respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio of DBT and DM was 3.50 and 2.83; the pooled negative likelihood ratio of DBT and DM was 15% and 18%; the pooled DOR for DBT and DM was 26.04 and 16.24, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Digital breast tomosynthesis has a higher sensitivity and specificity in breast diagnosis than digital mammography. KEY POINTS: • Digital breast tomosynthesis has high sensitivity and specificity in breast diagnosis.• DBT appears to have superior diagnostic accuracy relative to digital mammography. • DBT images were captured at a lower dose than 2D images. • DBT displays abnormal features of lesions more clearly than DM. • Digital breast tomosynthesis could become the first choice for assessing breast lesions.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM) for benign and malignant lesions in breasts. METHODS: Document retrieval was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, etc., from 1950 to June 2013. Metadisc1.4 software was used to analyse the pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and positive and negative likelihood ratio. The heterogeneity was assessed using forest plots and the inconsistency index (I(2)). Before statistical comparison, the area under (AUC) the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (SROC) of two different diagnostic methods was calculated respectively. RESULTS: A total of seven studies involving 2,014 patients and 2,666 breast lesions were included. Compared with the gold standard (histological results), the pooled sensitivity and specificity of DBT were 90.0% and 79.0%, and for DM they were 89.0% and 72.0%, respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio of DBT and DM was 3.50 and 2.83; the pooled negative likelihood ratio of DBT and DM was 15% and 18%; the pooled DOR for DBT and DM was 26.04 and 16.24, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Digital breast tomosynthesis has a higher sensitivity and specificity in breast diagnosis than digital mammography. KEY POINTS: • Digital breast tomosynthesis has high sensitivity and specificity in breast diagnosis.• DBT appears to have superior diagnostic accuracy relative to digital mammography. • DBT images were captured at a lower dose than 2D images. • DBT displays abnormal features of lesions more clearly than DM. • Digital breast tomosynthesis could become the first choice for assessing breast lesions.
Authors: Walter F Good; Gordon S Abrams; Victor J Catullo; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; David Gur Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: David Gur; Gordon S Abrams; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; Ronald L Perrin; Grace Y Rathfon; Jules H Sumkin; Margarita L Zuley; Andriy I Bandos Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Heang-Ping Chan; Jun Wei; Yiheng Zhang; Mark A Helvie; Richard H Moore; Berkman Sahiner; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Daniel B Kopans Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: M J Michell; A Iqbal; R K Wasan; D R Evans; C Peacock; C P Lawinski; A Douiri; R Wilson; P Whelehan Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan J Deeks; Constantine Gatsonis; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Alejandro Tejerina Bernal; Antonio Tejerina Bernal; Francisco Rabadán Doreste; Ana De Lara González; Juan Antonio Roselló Llerena; Armando Tejerina Gómez Journal: J Oncol Date: 2012-07-05 Impact factor: 4.375
Authors: Jaya S Khushalani; Donatus U Ekwueme; Thomas B Richards; Susan A Sabatino; Gery P Guy; Yuanhui Zhang; Florence Tangka Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Xing Zhang; Jie Yuan; Sidan Du; Oliver D Kripfgans; Xueding Wang; Paul L Carson; Xiaojun Liu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Stephane Zervoudis; George Iatrakis; Eirini Tomara; Anastasia Bothou; George Papadopoulos; George Tsakiris Journal: World J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-08-10
Authors: Manisha Bahl; Sarah Mercaldo; Charmi A Vijapura; Anne Marie McCarthy; Constance D Lehman Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 5.315